Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Whisper

by io.github.whisper-sec
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

agents: token

whisper_agents_token

The token operation on the Whisper control plane, served as CALL whisper.agents({op:'token', args:{...}}). Requires your Whisper API key. The identifier in the example is a placeholder for one of YOUR agents: list them with the "agents.list" skill and {"kind":"agents"}. Example call: {"skill":"agents.token","input":{"agent":"agent-a1f4c0b2d3e4f5a67"}} Needs a linked Whisper account (OAuth) or your API key in the X-API-Key header.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "whisper_agents_token"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYesArguments for this operation, as an object. The example passes {"agent":"agent-a1f4c0b2d3e4f5a67"}.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rowsYesThe answers, one object per row, keyed by the column names above. An empty array means the question was understood and nothing matched, which is an answer and not a failure.
columnsYesThe column names, in order. Every row object has exactly these keys, so this is the row shape and reading it is cheaper than inspecting a row.
statisticsNoWhat the query cost.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already indicate non-readonly, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the auth requirement and X-API-Key header detail, but does not disclose what the token operation changes, whether a token is created or rotated, or what side effects may occur.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The content is relevant but somewhat verbose, with an example embedded in both the description and the schema, plus repeated auth requirements. It is not front-loaded because it opens with a vague label rather than a concrete explanation of what the operation does.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for an open-world non-readonly token operation, the description never explains what the operation actually accomplishes or its effects, leaving a major comprehension gap despite covering auth and agent lookup.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The one-parameter input schema is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful guidance that the agent value is a placeholder for one of the caller's agents and points to agents.list for valid identifiers, but it adds no deeper semantics about how the identifier is interpreted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description only labels it "the token operation" and never says what token is issued, retrieved, revoked, or otherwise acted upon. The only concrete detail is that the input identifies one of the caller's agents, making the core purpose essentially a restatement of the tool name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains how to obtain an agent identifier via "agents.list" and that authentication is required, but gives no when-to-use condition, no exclusions, and no comparison to sibling tools such as whisper_agents_agent or whisper_agents_revoke.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Whisper toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources